Labour Minister Manzoor Nadir on Thursday defended his handling of the impasse between the GB&GWU and the RUSAL subsidiary, BCGI, telling the National Assembly that it was dealt with “rationally and impartially.”
After a lengthy debate the government used its parliamentary majority to veto a no-confidence motion moved against Nadir, who also rejected suggestions that the administration is biding time so as to get enough support from workers to derecognise the union. “I have some amount of confidence in my competence,” Nadir told the House. “Too many holes have punched in the arguments of the opposition and in the motion itself,” he added.
Debate on the motion went on for more than five hours and it was eventually defeated 34 to 20 votes, when a division was called for after 11 pm.
PNCR-1G Shadow Labour Minister Basil Williams moved the motion, which sought among other things to have the National Assembly declare a lack of confidence against Nadir “for his failure to carry out his legal responsibilities for the settlement of trade disputes, particularly the dispute between the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU) and the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc. (BCGI).” The two parties have been at loggerheads for more than 18 months, but the dispute intensified last November when the workers at the company engaged in strike action. Following the strike more than 50 of the workers were dismissed.
Williams, while noting the general uniqueness of the motion, said the main opposition party had serious concerns about Nadir’s failure to act in the dispute despite him being legally empowered to do so. “The minister must decide whether he is man or mouse…he must show strength,” Williams said, while several senior trade union leaders and senior staffers of the Labour Department looked on at the proceedings.
Williams also highlighted several “failings” that occurred during Nadir’s tenure as Labour Minister, including the withdrawal of subventions from the Critchlow Labour College. He accused the minister of introducing legislation that did not foster harmony in the trade union movement.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds sought to contextualise the impasse, emphasising that it took place during the period where there was a global financial downturn during which the bauxite industry internationally was affected. Hinds said that the government had done its part to address the initial dispute between the company and the union. He also noted that when the dispute escalated in November last year, the company had presented three offers to the union, which chose the option of a 10% retroactive pay hike and the retrenchment of 75 workers. He said he was surprised at the union’s decision, and he noted that he advised the company that the decision needed to be communicated in writing. Hinds was told that this was done. The Prime Minister said that subsequently 142 workers then engaged in a strike — which he acknowledged was part of their constitutional right — and 55 were dismissed for engaging in “riotous and threatening behavior.” Hinds said the company on its own accord paid the workers a 6.5% retroactive increase to 1st October and that the workers were paid their normal safety bonus.
A riled up Opposition Leader, Robert Corbin, accused the government members of throwing a lot of “red herrings” into the debate, saying that the matter at heart was the failure of the correct authority to adjudicate. He felt Hinds’ presentation made it seem that it was the government’s policy to get rid of the union, which was reflected in Nadir’s inaction. He also slammed the Minister for his lack of accountability, explaining that he refused to respond to correspondences on the matter, including one that he (Corbin) had sent to him in his capacity as the Opposition Leader as well as those from the union leaders.
AFC Leader Raphael Trotman meanwhile, questioned Hinds’ close dealing with the bauxite company. He accused him of usurping the functions of the Labour Minister and argued that the way the case was handled caused many to feel that if it were a dispute in the sugar industry, the response from the administration would have been different.
Focusing on the “human side” of the impasse, Trotman said he was on the scene at Aroaima when the workers were being harassed by four squads of black clothes police even as they were facing harsh economic times. He said the question was what more the Minister of Labour could have done and argued that Nadir should have moved earlier to bring a solution to the impasse.
Trotman also said that while the union leaders may have agreed on one option, the agreement which the company sought to sign with it was not in keeping with the selected option. As a result, he said the union leaders were correct not to sign it, since it was only retroactive to January 2009. Government members later refuted this argument and said that the agreement was for retroactive payment for that year.
Trotman also contended that it was unfair for a foreign company to come into Guyana and abuse the rights of workers. While stating that there were aspects of the motions he would have changed, he indicated his party’s support and urged Nadir to address some of the concerns raised.
PPP/C MPs Odinga Lumumba, Neil Kumar, and Anil Nandlall also spoke on the motion.
